We have no observed evidence of benefit gaining mutations that can produce macroevolution....that is, large scale biological changes (eg. snakes-from lizards, birds-from dinosaurs, etc). Most mutations are injurious which can only lead to what seems to be a ridiculous proposition that an organism randomly acquired a beneficial mutation which then, in turn, happened to be inherited, which then, in turn, was complimented by another beneficial mutation which would then, in turn, be inherited and, again, be complimented by another beneficial mutation that somehow conferred an advantage to the organism. And, all along the way, the intermediate steps would have required that they produced an advantage that was selected for.
Not enough said.
Are you under the impression that a lizard becomes a snake in one generation, or do you realize that it takes millions of years. Milliions of years that we have to work with. Life started 3.5 billion years ago, give or take. Do you realize that if you had started playing Powerball 3.5 billion years ago, and you bought just one number for each drawing day (of which there are two a week), you, individually, would have won the lottery over 2,000 times so far. As would anyone else who also played the game that much. That is how much time has gone by since life began here on earth.
If evolution has not occurred, why have we found whales and dolphins with leg bones. Not vestigial, but atavistic; actual leg bones. Not too many, but we have found them. Evolution explains that when genes change, more often than not genes turn on and off, not change completely. Hence dolphin embryo has leg nubs exactly the way land mammal embryos (including humans) have similar nubs. The also have a arm nubs, that turn into fins. In land animals, these same nubs turn into legs, or in the case of primates, arms and legs. Why would dolphins, if they did not evolve, show such similarity to other mammals. Especially when evolution states clearly that whales (including dolphins and porpoises) evolved from a land mammal? Why is your intelligent designer making it look like these animals evolved, and leaving evidence, and at time examples, of something that was never needed? Evolution explains this easily. Nothing else does. And you are unable to come up with any sort of explanation for such things. You just keep bringing up the same old things, which we disagree with somewhat vehemently.
So while you are nitpicking over the words micro and macro evolution (note: we do not have as much control over terminology as we would like. Our word police are poorly armed.) In any case, you continually use the same few examples and ignore others that I have brought up before. Whales, etc. I'll bring up more.
Evolution predicts that we will find many examples of very poorly designed alternations via DNA alternation/turned off/turned on stuff. Hence you have a prostate gland that wraps around your urethra and as you age, the gland enlarges, and eventually you have to get medical help of one sort or another to pee. Where is the intelligence in that? In the wild and whacky world of evolution, it is more or less irrelevant, because that change does not normally occur until after the male has had plenty of time to help a female procreate, but in the alleged world of the intelligent designer, it was a mean as fuck thing to do to a potential supporter.
In all mammals, we have a nerve that runs from the brain to the throat. It is generically called the vegas nerve, and we can trace its origin back to our fish ancestors, for whom the nerve followed a logical path as is went from the brain, to just above the heart the heart and to the throat. Lacking a neck, and given he position of the brain, it was efficient. However, in current humans, evolved from said fish, and who developed a neck, and put our brain way up high in our head, that same nerve travels down our neck, to the blood vessels sit above the heart, where a branch goes back up to our throat, where ti does necessary things like open and close our vocal chords, help us swallow and such. And in a giraffe, said nerve is over over 15 feet long, when the signal it sends only needs to go two to three inches. This is entirely consistent with the picture of mammalian evolution that we have, totally inconsistent with a designer. Or at least totally inconsistent with a designer that has any talent.
The entire theory of evolution reads approximately like this:
1. Evolution occurs because populations change over time.
2 .It usually happens gradually, sometimes taking hundreds of millions of years. (Simple organisms, such as bacteria, can change in just 20,000 or so generations. We've followed the process in the lab. It took over 12 years, but that's still incredibly fast, evolutionarily.
3. New species arise when one species splits into a least two new ones with the genetic changes.
4. All species share a common ancestry, and that ancestry can be followed, genetically and through the fossil record. WE can, for instance, trace back genetically and find where humans and yeast split from the same common ancestor. We share genes with yeast. Human genes that match yeast genes can be put into yeast cells , where they will perform as yeast cells, doing in the yeast exactly what they do in humans, modified for the needs of the yeast. Important discoveries about the human genome have been conducted by studying yeast DNA. This is entirely consistent with, and predictable, within the field of evolution. ID would have never even suspected such a link.
5.And most, but not all, evolution took place because of natural selection, which is the source of "adaption", a keystone in the theory. Some changes just occur, and neither hurt nor harm the organism. Others are either to the advantage of the critter or kill it, either directly or by leaving it less able to deal with the environment. On the Galapagos Islands, for instance, when drought hit, the small soft seeds being eaten by the indigenous finches disappeared, and the next best natural food available was a larger, harder seed, which was more difficult to eat. But in one generation the finches began to develop a 10% larger beak, which was stronger and more able to crack the new type of food. No intelligent designer was seen on the island at the time, so we're gonna go with evolutionary forces being responsible for that adaption.
It does indeed assume that life began on earth, though there is room for it to have begun elsewhere. No, we do not know how life started, but we trust that that is because we're not smart enough yet, not because it didn't happen. If you were merely stating that ID was the start of life, and then allowing for evolution, we would be disagreeing, but neither side would have any solid evidence to diss the other. But once we have living cells, then I feel that evolution becomes obvious.
Evolutionary theory makes predictions, whether you like it or not.
Evolution predicts that we will find simple organism when we are looking at early life, and a that the organisms will get more complex as time passes. And indeed, the earliest life that we can find evidence for is single celled, and as time passes, the organisms to indeed get more and more complex.
Evolution predicts that we will be able to find evidence of closely related species splitting from a common ancestor. And as much as you don't like it, we have found fossils that appear to science to have done exactly that. Very similar critters or plants, with small but traceable changes. One might be found in the fossil remains of a desert environment, while the other may be found only in a wet rainforest type environment, for instance. If they both survived, were a new set of species rather than one, and we can often trace the further evolution of one or both new species. Because we can predict that we should be able to do that. And we do.
While you get all blubbery and try to decide if you want attack this claim directly or just go for a throwaway line somewhere else in this post, listen to this. We can drill down into the ocean floor, where for many, many millions of years dead diatoms have piled up as they died and fell to the bottom, building up on top of each other and eventually turning to stone. Which we drill into with core drills and pull out layer after layer, millions of years old, of these dead diatoms. And we can trace the changes over time of said diatoms. And we can see them split into new species as we go through those cores layer by layer, century by century, millennia by millennia, etc. It was predicted that we could do this. We did it. Explain any other mechanism that could account for those changes.
Evolution predicts that we should be able to find transitional forms. And while I know that you guys love to say that such things don't exist, we have that evidence. I mentioned in an earlier ignored post about the whale fossils, which were predicted long before they were found.
The same goes for birds and reptiles, though you've made it clear you don't like that one either. But there used to be no birds, and then they started showing up while reptiles and dinosaurs were around, and we've found gobs of reptiles with fossilized feathers, and early birds are primitive, and as the geology gets newer, as we approach the modern era, we find more and more modern birds, that had to come from somewhere, and the only link we see is the striking similarity, structure-wise, feather-wise,egg-bearing-wise to reptiles and dinosaurs, and forgive us if we leap to conclusions based on solid evidence. This was predicted by the earliest supporters of evolution, and has been born out by evidence. The exact path may be in dispute, but this is mostly because we haven't found quite enough fossils to support any of the proposed routes of bird evolution. But when the oldest amphibians and later, reptiles, were wandering around, there were no birds. After the reptiles and dinosaurs were around for many millions of years, primitive birds also began to appear, and we have strong reason to believe there is a connection.
One has to ask. If an intelligent designer was involved, why did he start out making primitive birds (or primitive anything) and eventually make more modern versions of each. Why was he making it look like another mechanism could have been involved?
I could go on and on, but if you are going to ignore and ignore, I see no need to take this any further. What I have discussed is a large number of features of evolution that you have ignored, BibleStudent. You prefer dwelling on your insistence that there is no mechanism for change, when evolution says yes, there is, and it tells us why. And it gives example after example, based on discovery after discovery. And when you sit there and say "Uh-uh" without going into any details and only asking rhetorical questions, you are accomplishing nothing.
Until you can explain why you were covered with hair as an unborn at about six months, just like primates. As a human, that hair falls off before we are born as long we are not premature. Our gene for hair gets turned on for a little while, then turns off, and the hair falls off. Why? This is totally consistent with the theory of evolution, it has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligent design. Until you can explain the vestigial rear legs buried in the muscles of all whales (not to be confused with the atavistic rear whale legs that I mentioned earlier). Explain it. Why would whales have genetic information for rear legs if an intelligent designer made them without rear legs? WHY?
If all you can do is claim it impossible and not offer explanations for these various mysteries, you can make no progress. As long as you cannot explain why human embryos have yolk sacs for awhile, like our reptilian ancestors, except with no yoke inside? And humans have three genes that can make the yolk that would fill that sack, but they are turned off. Why? Why did the intelligent designer turn off the genes in humans that used to make vitamin C. All other mammals, besides primates, have the genes to make vitamin C, and so do humans,but they aren't turned on. We have to get ours by eating fruits. Why do we have the genes for a much better sense of smell, but they are not turned on in us humans. Why?
Sorry, I meant to stop, but I keep thinking of other questions to ask. Your challenge is not to say that evolution is false without explaining in accurate detail why you feel that to be the case. Your job is to explain how all these questions confirm intelligent design. The vagus nerve thing. WTF?
Stop sounding incredulous. Give us the information you have (not the negative stuff about evolution, but the positive stuff about intelligent design) that explains the questions we who support evolution have about your claims. Get proactive, dude.